Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• L.D.A. (Tepa) And Other vs Metropolitan Corporation Lahore And Other(K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 40) · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-29Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 265 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Alam And 3 Other vs Govt of Punjab through SecretaryK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 49 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khurshid Alam and 2 others vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Irrigation & Power Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 6 others1998 PLD Lahore 189 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-31Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmed Baloch, Executive Engineer (Civil), General Civil1998 MLD 464 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-18Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmad Baloch Executive Engineering (Civil) General CivilK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 220 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh, Etc. vs Mulazim Hussain, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 710 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat vs The State1998 MLD 1681 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-31Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Sarfraz Ahmad alias Ganesh and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 560 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-24Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Zafar Abbas Luk, Sub-Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station1998 P Cr. L J 290 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-19Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 167 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-02Read full judgment →
• Khalique Ahmad vs Tahir Saeed and another1998 CLC 1973 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-25
  specific performanceOrder II Rule 2constructive res judicatawithdrawal of suitcivil revisionperpetual injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition concerns the applicability of Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to a subsequent suit for specific performance filed after the withdrawal of an earlier suit for permanent injunction. The petitioner argued that the respondent's second suit was barred because the relief of specific performance should have been claimed in the initial suit. The Court held that the provisions of Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, are not attracted when the suits are contemporaneous or when the second suit is filed before the earlier suit is decided on merits. The Court affirmed that the principle of constructive res judicata applies to subsequent suits, not to suits filed simultaneously or where the first suit is withdrawn before adjudication. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition, ruling that the institution of a second suit for specific performance, following the withdrawal of an earlier injunction suit, does not constitute vexing the defendant twice for the same cause of action.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of an earlier suit for permanent injunction bar a subsequent suit for specific performance under Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the principle of constructive res judicata apply to contemporaneous suits?
  • Is a second suit barred under Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, if the first suit was withdrawn before any adjudication on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Sarwar vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1131 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-15Read full judgment →
• Khalid Nawaz vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 2008 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-18
  Control of Narcotic SubstancesAssistant Sub-InspectorJurisdictionCoram non judiceIllegal search and seizureSpecial oathAcquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Okara, convicting the appellant under Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance VI of 1995 and sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that an Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.-I.) intercepted the appellant, searched him, and recovered 12 grams of heroin. The core legal questions pertained to the competence and jurisdiction of an A.S.-I. to detain, search, seize narcotics, and arrest an accused under Sections 21 and 22 of the Ordinance, and whether a criminal trial could be determined based on a special oath under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The High Court held that statutory provisions required an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector to conduct such seizure and arrest. Consequently, the search, arrest, and subsequent proceedings conducted by the A.S.-I. lacked substantive jurisdiction and were coram non judice. The Court also held that Article 163 explicitly excludes criminal cases from being decided on special oath. The appeal was accepted, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police have the statutory authority and jurisdiction to detain, search, seize narcotics from, or arrest an accused under Sections 21 and 22 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance VI of 1995?
  • What is the legal effect of a search, seizure, and arrest conducted by a police officer who lacks the prescribed statutory rank under the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance VI of 1995?
  • Can a criminal prosecution be decided on the basis of a special oath pursuant to Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 375 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-04Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs (Mst.) Sultana BanoK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 765 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-03Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood and 3 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 901 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-04Read full judgment →
• Khalid Javaid vs Mst. Tahira Yasmeen and 2 others1998 CLC 1011 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-09Read full judgment →
• Kh. Muhammad Umar Farooq and 2 otherss vs Province of the Punjab1998 CLC 505 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-12Read full judgment →
• Kazim Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 331 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-10Read full judgment →
• Kausar Mahboob vs The State1998 MLD 1542 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-17Read full judgment →
• Kaukab Maqbool Ahmad vs Executive Officer Cantonment Board, MultanK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 510 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-10Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh vs Controller Examination, Islamia University, Bahawalpur and another1998 MLD 21 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh and 16 others vs Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur1998 MLD 1129 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-10Read full judgment →
• Karamat Hussain Shah vs The District Magistrate, Attock1998 P Cr. L J 89 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-22Read full judgment →
• Karamat Ali vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1779 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-23Read full judgment →
• Kalu and 4 others vs The State and another1998 PLD Lahore 539 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-26
  private complaintpreliminary inquirySection 202 Cr.P.C.criminal revisionissuance of processprima facie caseright of audience
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order by an Additional Sessions Judge summoning the petitioners as accused persons in a private complaint case for murder, despite a prior police investigation having found them innocent. The core legal question was whether an accused person has a right to participate in, or have their defense—specifically police findings of innocence—considered during a preliminary inquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction. The Court established that a preliminary inquiry under Section 202 is not a trial; consequently, the accused has no right of audience or participation at this stage. The inquiry's sole purpose is to determine if a prima facie case exists based on the complainant's evidence. It is not mandatory for the Inquiry Magistrate to examine the Investigating Officer or consider police case diaries during this preliminary stage, as the accused's defense is reserved for the actual trial. The Magistrate must exercise independent judgment rather than relying solely on police reports.

  Questions settled

  • Does an accused person have a right to participate in a preliminary inquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a Magistrate required to examine the Investigating Officer or consider police case diaries during a preliminary inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court summon an accused person in a private complaint even if the police investigation previously found them innocent?
  • Is the report of an Inquiry Magistrate under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 binding upon the court taking cognizance of the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Kabeer vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1311 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-07
  post-arrest bailabetmentconspiracyextra-judicial confessionfurther inquirymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Kabeer, who was charged under Sections 364, 302, 201, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with the abduction and murder of his brother, Sher Muhammad. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner conspired with and abetted his co-accused, Muhammad Ramzan, who purportedly committed the murder by inflicting fatal blows and disposing of the body in a canal. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioner, whose alleged role was limited to conspiracy and abetment, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Court observed that the evidence of extra-judicial confession relied upon by the prosecution was weak. Furthermore, relying on established precedents, the Court held that an accused whose involvement is limited to abetment of murder is entitled to bail, as the case against him warrants further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of a bail bond, thereby affirming the principle that allegations of abetment in capital offences often necessitate further judicial scrutiny before trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused person whose alleged role is limited to conspiracy and abetment of murder entitled to bail?
  • Does the reliance on extra-judicial confession as the primary evidence against an accused render a case one of further inquiry?
  • Can an accused charged with abetment under Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be granted bail pending trial?
  Read full judgment →
• K.P.W. Factors (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Shafqat Javed Cheema and others1998 CLC 110 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-02
  closure of evidenceadjournmentrevision petitionremand ordercivil proceduretrial court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a suit for the recovery of rent where the trial court closed the defendants' evidence under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, subsequently decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed, and the Additional District Judge remanded the case, prompting the plaintiff to file this revision petition. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly invoked Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. to close the defendants' evidence. The High Court held that the trial court erred in its application of the law. The ratio established is that for Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. to be applicable, the adjourned date of hearing must have been fixed at the request or instance of the party in default. Since the date in question was not fixed at the defendants' request, the trial court's action was legally unsustainable. Consequently, the High Court upheld the remand order, dismissing the revision petition while directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings within a limited timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a trial court invoke Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to close a party's evidence?
  • Is an order closing evidence under Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 valid if the adjourned date was not fixed at the request of the defaulting party?
  • Does an appellate court have the authority to remand a case if the trial court improperly closed the evidence of a party?
  Read full judgment →
• Jiwan Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1797 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-27Read full judgment →
• Jehangir Mughal vs District Council, Okara and 2 others1998 PLD Lahore 209 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-29Read full judgment →
• Javed Maqbool Bhatti vs Secretary, Irrigation and PowerK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 53 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal Mughal vs Returning Officer, Sialkot Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 384 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-06Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal and another vs Qazi Khaliq Ahmed and 3 others1998 CLC 106 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-29Read full judgment →
• Javed Akhtar vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1462 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-30
  narcotic possessionchemical examiner reportdelayed dispatchright to legal representationinvestigating officer as complainantpersonal searchbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance 1995, for the possession of 250 grams of Charas. The core legal questions concerned the validity of a recovery made without independent witnesses, the propriety of the complainant acting as the investigating officer, the impact of unexplained delay in transmitting samples to the Chemical Examiner, and the prejudice caused by the appellant being unrepresented at trial. The Lahore High Court held that while Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not strictly apply to personal searches during emergency highway pursuits, the prosecution's case was fatally flawed. The Court determined that the complainant acting as the investigating officer, combined with an unexplained seven-day delay in dispatching the contraband to the Chemical Examiner and the appellant's inability to cross-examine witnesses due to lack of legal representation, created significant prejudice. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, laying down the principle that unexplained delays in forensic transmission and the absence of legal representation for an accused in criminal trials undermine the reliability of the prosecution's case and violate the requirements of a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to the personal search of an individual apprehended on a highway?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered contraband to the Chemical Examiner render the forensic report unreliable?
  • Does the fact that the complainant also acted as the investigating officer in a criminal case cause prejudice to the accused?
  • Does the lack of legal representation for an accused, preventing effective cross-examination, constitute a ground for setting aside a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Ahmad vs The State Bank of Pakistan Securities Department1998 P.C.T.L.R. 733 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Javaid Iqbal vs The Secretary, Establishment Division, Cabinet1998 PLC (C.S.) 42 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
• Javaid Iqbal vs The Secretary Establishment Division CabinetK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 37 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad1998 MLD 1151 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-04Read full judgment →
• Jamshaid Ali vs Sheikh Muhammad Azhar1998 CLC 1879 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-13Read full judgment →
• Jameel Ahmed vs Abdul Sattar and others1998 PLD Lahore 420 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-02Read full judgment →
• Jameel Ahmad vs Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 607 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-13Read full judgment →
• Jalil Ahmad vs Public Service Commission and another1998 CLC 435 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-21
  grace marksPublic Service Commissionstatutory interpretationmandatory provisionsjudicial branch rulesaggregate marksconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought a direction for the Public Service Commission to grant the petitioner one grace mark to meet the 50% aggregate requirement for selection as a Civil Judge, arguing that his 49.90% score should be rounded up or treated as a hardship case. The core legal question was whether the Commission retained the discretion to award grace marks under the prevailing rules. The Court held that the relevant statutory framework, specifically the West Pakistan Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1962, as amended in 1986, had explicitly omitted the provision for grace marks. Consequently, the Court ruled that the requirement to obtain 50% aggregate marks is mandatory and absolute, leaving no room for the exercise of discretion or the rounding of fractional shortfalls. The key principle laid down is that when a statute prescribes a specific manner for an act to be performed, it must be done strictly in that manner; where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, courts must enforce it as written, regardless of the hardship caused to an individual candidate.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Public Service Commission retain the discretion to award grace marks under the West Pakistan Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules 1962 following the 1986 amendment?
  • Can a candidate claim a right to have fractional marks rounded up to meet the minimum aggregate requirement for a competitive examination?
  • Is the requirement to obtain 50% aggregate marks in the written portion of the examination mandatory or directory?
  • Does the principle of 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' apply when a statute prescribes a specific procedure for qualification?
  Read full judgment →
• Jalal Khan vs (Mst.) Parveen Akhtar (Deceased) Rep. by L.Rs.(K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 54) · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-01Read full judgment →
• Jaffar, Etc. vs The StateKL R. 1998 Criminal Cases 260 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
• Ismat' Naureen vs Additional Sessions Judge, Attock and another1998 PLD Lahore 275 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-07
  Anti-Terrorism Act 1997self-executing provisionstransfer of casesscheduled offencesministerial functionjurisdiction of special courtswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Attock, transferring a murder case to a Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether a formal judicial order is required to transfer a case involving a scheduled offence to a Special Court, or if such transfer occurs automatically by operation of law. The Court held that the provisions of Section 12 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, are self-executing, meaning that cases involving scheduled offences stand transferred to the Special Court automatically upon the commencement of the Act or the institution of the case. Consequently, no formal judicial order is necessary to effectuate this transfer, and the physical transmission of the case file is merely a ministerial function. The Court established the principle that self-executory statutory provisions take effect by their own force without requiring ancillary judicial intervention. Furthermore, the Court clarified that if a party disputes the classification of an offence, they possess an adequate remedy to seek re-transfer before the Special Court under Section 23 of the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does the transfer of a scheduled offence to a Special Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 require a formal judicial order?
  • Are the provisions of Section 12 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 self-executing?
  • Can a party seek the re-transfer of a case from a Special Court to an ordinary criminal court under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Ismat Naureen vs Additional Sessions Judge, Attock And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 77 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-07Read full judgment →
• Ishtiaq Nazir and 3 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1869 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
• Ishtiaq Khan vs Dministrator/Chairman, Town Committee Shahpur1998 MLD 615 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-16Read full judgment →
• Ishaq Dar vs The Election Tribunal (Punjab), Lahore Bench at the Lahore High Court, Lahore Constituted under the Provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1976 And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 374 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Irshad Begum, Etc. vs Muhammad SarwarK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 589 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-01Read full judgment →
• Iram Ghee Mills Ltd. vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1998 PTD 3835 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-29
  income tax appealbest judgment assessmenttax exemptionParagraph 118-ESection 136 Income Tax Ordinancemanufacturing versus commercial salesadvisory jurisdictionpresumptive tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This tax appeal under amended Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 was preferred by an assessee company seeking exemption under Paragraph 118-E of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, and challenging a best-judgment assessment under Section 63 as well as the application of Section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had affirmed the assessing officer's determination bifurcating the assessee's sales into manufacturing and commercial sales, denying exemption on the ground that statutory conditions were not satisfied. The Lahore High Court examined the nature and ambit of Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, clarifying that substituting 'appeal' for 'reference' was cosmetic and did not alter the Court's fundamental advisory jurisdiction. On the merits, the Court held that tax exemption provisions must be strictly construed against the assessee. The assessee failed to provide audited accounts or substantiating evidence regarding its machinery and manufacturing operations; hence, the best-judgment assessment under Section 63 was valid, and trading activities fell outside Paragraph 118-E. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the substitution of the term 'appeal' for 'reference' in the amended Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 alter the scope or fundamental nature of the High Court's jurisdiction?
  • Can an assessee claim tax exemption under Paragraph 118-E of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 for income derived from commercial or trading activities rather than manufacturing activities?
  • Is the Assessing Officer empowered to proceed under Section 63 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 to issue a best-judgment assessment where the assessee fails to produce books of accounts, vouchers, or supporting evidence despite multiple adjournments?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 21 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-16Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Khan through Legal Heirs and 2 otherss vs Muhammad Ilyas and 51998 CLC 1216 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-28Read full judgment →
• Intizar Hussain vs State1998 MLD 1990 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-25Read full judgment →
• Intizar Ali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 926 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-08Read full judgment →
• Interenational College of Home Economics, Sponsored by Punjab1998 CLC 641 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-24Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah Khan vs The StateK.L.R 1998 Criminal Cases 154 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-02Read full judgment →
• Inam Ullah Rashid vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 120 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-25Read full judgment →
• Imran Tahir vs The State1998 MLD 1676 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
• Imran Murtaza vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 301 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-12Read full judgment →
• Imran Khan and others vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others1998 MLD 318 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-26Read full judgment →
• Imran Iqbal vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 351 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-19Read full judgment →
• Imam Bakhsh and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1250 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-13Read full judgment →
• Ikramullah vs Administrator, Municipal Committee1998 PLC (C.S.) 22 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-21Read full judgment →
• Ikram Hassan Khan And Other vs Sajjad Aziz Bhatti, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 121 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-21Read full judgment →
• Ihsan Ullah vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 2014 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-18Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs N.I.R.C. and others1998 PLC 268 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-17
  writ petitioninterim reliefjurisdictionNIRCtransfer orderscivil servants
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition, along with connected petitions, challenges interim orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) suspending transfer orders of government servants or civil servants at the pre-admission stage. The core legal question is whether a court or tribunal must determine the question of its jurisdiction before granting interim relief. The Lahore High Court held that it is an established principle of law that while granting even interim relief, a court or tribunal must first decide the question of its jurisdiction, as only orders passed with jurisdiction possess binding force. The impugned interim orders passed by the N.I.R.C. were consequently set aside for failure to determine jurisdiction, and the N.I.R.C. was directed to expeditiously decide the petitions with specific reference to its jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Must a court or tribunal decide the question of its jurisdiction before granting interim relief?
  • Can an interim order passed without determining jurisdiction have binding force?
  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction to suspend transfer orders of civil servants without determining its competence?
  Read full judgment →
• ICI Pakistan Limited, Lahore Sheikhupura Road, Sheikhupura vs PunjabK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 152 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-03Read full judgment →
• Hye Sons Sugar Mills, Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.1998 P.T.C.L.R. 1 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
• Hudabiya Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan, Etc_1998 P.C.T.L.R. 445 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hudabiya Engineering (Pvt.) Limited vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan and 6 others1998 PTD 34 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-15
  foreign currency accountsstatutory immunitybanking secrecyeconomic reformstax evasioninvestigation jurisdictionintra-court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal before a five-member Bench of the Lahore High Court arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition challenging an investigation by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) into alleged fake and benami foreign currency accounts. The core legal question was the scope and extent of the protection, immunity, and secrecy granted to foreign currency accounts under the Protection of Economic Reforms Act 1992, specifically whether such protections are limited to 'bona fide' transactions under Section 9 of the Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the single Judge's judgment. The Court held that Section 5 of the Act provides a complete, independent code granting absolute immunity and requiring 'complete' secrecy for foreign currency accounts, which is distinct from the 'bona fide' secrecy standard applied to other banking transactions under Section 9. Consequently, neither taxation authorities nor the FIA have jurisdiction to inquire into the source of financing or transactions of foreign currency accounts, rendering the criminal investigation unlawful.

  Questions settled

  • Does the immunity and secrecy granted to foreign currency accounts under Section 5 of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act 1992 depend on the transactions being 'bona fide' under Section 9 of the same Act?
  • Do federal law enforcement or taxation agencies have the jurisdiction to initiate inquiries into the source of financing of foreign currency accounts protected under the Protection of Economic Reforms Act 1992?
  • How does the word 'complete' in Section 5(3) of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act 1992 distinguish the secrecy of foreign currency accounts from other banking transactions under Section 9?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazaray Shah vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 417 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-26Read full judgment →
• Hassan And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 86 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-29Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 286 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-14Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz and others vs State1998 MLD 2057 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-31Read full judgment →
• Hamid Abbas vs S.H.O., Police Station Chehlyak, Multan1998 MLD 1646 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-26Read full judgment →
• Hamayun vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1501 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-20Read full judgment →
• Hakim Dad vs Muhammad Akram Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 187 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-16Read full judgment →
• Hakim Dad vs Muhammad Akram and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 936 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-16Read full judgment →
• Hajjaj Jogezai vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore1998 CLC 95 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs Province of Punjab and others1998 CLC 1997 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-28Read full judgment →
• Haji Rasheed Ahmad and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 2059 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-04Read full judgment →
• Haji Noor-Ul-Haq vs Collector of Customs and others1998 MLD 650 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-22
  customs seizureshow-cause noticeextension of timerecorded reasonssmuggled goodsreturn of goods
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner challenging show-cause notices issued by the Customs Authorities following the search, raid, and seizure of imported smuggled auto spare parts, and praying for the return of the seized goods on the ground that authorities failed to issue show-cause notices within the statutory period stipulated in section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal questions concerned whether the initial acts constituted valid seizures under section 168(2), whether mechanical orders of extension passed by the Collector of Customs without recording reasons satisfied the statutory proviso, and whether the petitioner was entitled to the return of goods upon failure to issue a show-cause notice within two months. The Lahore High Court held that the recovery reports were indeed seizures, that the extension orders lacking recorded reasons were invalid in the eyes of law, and that failure to issue a show-cause notice within the mandated two-month period without a valid extension entitles the petitioner to the return of the seized goods, though it does not absolve the party from penal liability. The key principle laid down is that the statutory requirement for issuing a show-cause notice within two months of seizure is mandatory, and any extension of this period by the Collector of Customs must be justified by reasons recorded in writing reflecting a conscious application of mind.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery and seizure reports prepared by the Customs Authorities constitute seizures within the contemplation of section 168(2) of the Customs Act 1969?
  • Can an extension of time granted by the Collector of Customs under section 168(2) of the Customs Act 1969 be deemed valid in the absence of recorded reasons?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to the return of seized goods if no show-cause notice is issued under section 180 of the Customs Act 1969 within two months of the seizure and without a valid extension order?
  • Does the failure to issue a statutory show-cause notice within the requisite two-month period under section 168(2) of the Customs Act 1969 absolve the delinquent from penal liability or fine?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Noor-Ul-Haq And Other vs Collector Of Customs And OtherPTCL 1998 CL. 435 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-22Read full judgment →
• Haji Noor Hassan vs Khalid Masood, Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station1998 P Cr. L J 1451 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-16
  habeas corpusillegal detentionpolice custodyrecovery of detenucompensation costsdaily diaryliberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a habeas corpus petition filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the recovery of the petitioner's son from the alleged illegal and improper custody of the Station House Officer. The core legal question concerns whether the detention of the alleged detenu by the police without the registration of any criminal case or entry in the police daily diary was lawful. The Lahore High Court held that the detention was entirely illegal and without justification, as the police officer failed to show any registered case against the detenu or produce a valid record of arrest. The Court laid down the principle that arbitrary deprivation of liberty by law enforcement agencies is violative of law and fundamental rights, and courts can order the immediate release of illegal detainees alongside the imposition of personal compensation costs upon the delinquent police official.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the detention of a citizen by the police without recording an arrest in the daily diary or registering a criminal case is illegal?
  • Can a court order a police officer responsible for illegal detention to pay personal compensation to the detenu?
  • What constitutes sufficient proof of illegal confinement during a bailiff's inspection of a police station?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muzaffar Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 179 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Rafiq vs (Mst.) Iqbal Bano And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 534 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-02Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Nawaz Khokhar vs Federation of Pakistan and others1998 CLC 918 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-25Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Aslam vs S.H.O. and others1998 MLD 2051 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-05Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ashraf vs Muhammad Yaqoob, And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 581 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti vs Muhammad Yaqoob and 11 others1998 MLD 894 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Ghulam Qadir and 47 otherss vs Municipal Committee, Lalamusa, District Gujrat through Administrator and 3 others1998 CLC 1647 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Fazal Hussain vs Muhammad Yousaf ChishtiK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 355 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-09Read full judgment →
• Hafeezullah vs Muhammad Saleem1998 MLD 133 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-13Read full judgment →
• Habibur Rehman vs Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and another1998 MLD 632 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-15Read full judgment →
• Habib-Ur-Rehman Sheikh vs Accountant-General, Pakistan Revenues, Islamabad and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 96 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Habib-Ul-Wahab Al-Khairi vs Secretary, Punjab Bar Council and 41998 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-16
  disciplinary proceedingsbar councilexecutive committeedisciplinary committeeprofessional misconductconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenging an order passed by the Executive Committee of the Punjab Bar Council which had withdrawn a misconduct complaint from the Disciplinary Committee and dismissed it. The core legal question was whether the Executive Committee has the jurisdiction to interfere in, withdraw, or decide disciplinary proceedings pending before the Disciplinary Committee under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. The Lahore High Court held that the Executive Committee has no jurisdiction over disciplinary matters, as the power to entertain, inquire into, and summarily reject complaints against advocates vests exclusively in the Disciplinary Committee under section 41 of the Act, and rule 6.2 of the Punjab Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 1974 cannot override the parent statute. The court laid down the principle that the Executive Committee and Disciplinary Committee are separate statutory entities with non-overlapping functions, and the Executive Committee possesses no supervisory or appellate authority over the Disciplinary Committee.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Executive Committee of a Bar Council have the jurisdiction to withdraw or interfere in disciplinary proceedings pending before the Disciplinary Committee?
  • Whether the power to summarily reject a complaint of professional misconduct against an advocate vests in the Executive Committee or the Disciplinary Committee under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973?
  • Can a rule framed under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 override or be inconsistent with the substantive provisions of the parent statute regarding disciplinary powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Ul Wahab El Khairi vs Pakistan through Secretary, Interior Division, Islamabad and others1998 MLD 1523 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs (M/s). Qadri Traders And Another1998 P.C.T.L.R. 923 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-08Read full judgment →